This is another example of what I mean about what the abortion fight is REALLY about. It's not about saving babies, it's about punishing sluts. Easy access to contraception is demonstrably the best way to prevent abortions, but that is not the real goal of the conservative movement. The real goal of the conservative movement is to stop premarital sex, by punishing women who engage in it.

Obama is requiring churches to cover contraceptives in their health plans. If conservatives really wanted to stop abortions, they would be cheering this move. The fact that it's a controversy is the clearest possible proof that what I've been trying to say is true -- that the fight is so nasty and ongoing because conservatives do not want what they claim to want.

They don't give a f*ck about the fetuses, what they care about is the women. They want to stop access to contraceptives so that those sinful sluts will be punished with pregnancy as God intended.

Oh, and it's okay to lie about birth control in order to get those bitches.

I think it's kind of creepy that a teenager is being counseled to tell his mom to be more attractive to his dad and to send them on a "romantic weekend" anyway. And where I'm from, verbally assuming someone else's mom is fat and inspires drinking in the religious, or at least openly drawing the comparison? Fighting words.

The cases of detention and forced medical intervention varied widely and included one in which a judge in Ohio kept a woman imprisoned to prevent her having an abortion.

[long snip]

She said: “It is not just the criminalisation of pregnant women, that almost minimises the scope of what we are talking about. They are using civil statues to keep women committed. Right we’re ordering the foetus to be committed and you have to come too.”

The study found that police, prosecutors and judges relied directly and indirectly on feticide statues that create separate rights for the unborn, claiming to protecting pregnant women and the eggs, embryos and foetuses they carry from third-party violence, on state abortion laws that include language similar to personhood measures and to “misinterpretation of Roe v Wade as holding what personhood measures propose – that foetuses may be treated as separate legal persons”.

Paltrow warned that if personhood measures pass, it would create a “Jane Crow system of law in which pregnant women have a second class status.”

Well, at least that might get escalated to the SCOTUS where we can hopefully get that particular crap declared unconstitutional on a federal level.

It already is. Even the Rhenquist court could not do away with "undue burdens on a woman's right to abort" as unconstitutional. Just like every video-game law Leland Yi passed was unconstitutional, that did not stop them from passing.

Well what is sad, fundamentally, is that the only hope most people have when states like Ohio, Virginia pass these horrendous laws is for special interests like Planned Parenthood, or the League of Women Voters, etc. to take up the case for free. The democratic process in many states is not apt to protecting constitutional rights, the federal courts have been the release valve. So just like with Prop 8, the entire nation will end up paying for politicians in Ohio making a stand to garner votes.

What is doubly problematic in Ohio is that the 6th Circuit has a terrible track record on constitutional issues the last 10 years. While I have every confidence that they could get a simple injunction against the law in the District. The circuit is off the rails right now.

The stance is not inconsistent. The Catholic Church has long maintained the sanctity of fetuses and embryos, but it does not pretend to have power over their legal state. It can lobby and push, but otherwise does not have legislative power. The state still has final say on that topic. If Stodghill were to file a complaint to the Church, it would be inconsistent for the Church to deny previous stances without a major Council meeting on these issues for the Church in general.

However, Stodghill is filing complaint against a Catholic Hospital (not the Church) TO the state, which makes it a legal issue, not a Church one. In that case, it is consistent for hospital lawyers to point out that whatever their own moral stance on the issue, the law says what it says.

Analogously, I could hold a moral stance that murder is wrong, but if murder is not illegal and I happen to murder someone, I can still defend myself legally from any complaint under the law, without losing moral integrity.

It's not that complicated. Seeing a conflict here is just confirmation bias.

However, Stodghill is filing complaint against a Catholic Hospital (not the Church) TO the state, which makes it a legal issue, not a Church one. In that case, it is consistent for hospital lawyers to point out that whatever their own moral stance on the issue, the law says what it says.

So the church should honor the law in both directions and if abortion is legal they should provide those services at their hospitals, no?

If mandated without exception, then yes. It's not inconsistent for the Church to lobby for exceptions. It's also important to point out that the Church itself is not monolithic, and Catholic traditions have a good deal of variety. We don't all agree on everything, and it's not just the Vatican that composes the Church. We are the Church as well.

Moreover, the Church has strong influence, but does not control the actions of affiliate nonprofits. Would it be fair for me to criticize Americans in general for the actions of any particular America-affiliated nonprofit?

Actually LarryC changed my mind on this. I do still consider it hypocritical on the part of the church, but the defense makes sense; like when libertarians take advantage of things like public roads or other services; it's against their stated ideals, but that doesn't mean they have to forsake those services while they exist.

Not sure who was looking at the newswire this morning. But the ban on women in combat has been lifted.

In a few years and exceptions to the new rule will be allowed. Which makes sense since women are held to a much lower physical standard, which in many roles creates a hazard. Realistically, women won't be (and shouldn't be) allowed into all positions until they have to meet the same standards as men.

Not sure who was looking at the newswire this morning. But the ban on women in combat has been lifted.

In a few years and exceptions to the new rule will be allowed. Which makes sense since women are held to a much lower physical standard, which in many roles creates a hazard. Realistically, women won't be (and shouldn't be) allowed into all positions until they have to meet the same standards as men.

Not that I completely agree with this, but here goes the Devil's Advocate argument I hear all the time.

Part of the reason some of the physical expectations for combat ready troops are the way they are is because we have failed to think creatively regarding how we can make accommodations for women in combat while not reducing their combat effectiveness. A solid example of this is standard issue body armor. It is made to fit men and runs much longer in the torso than most women find comfortable. Especially when in a seated position, the armor tends to make lateral movement nearly impossible.

Some would argue that forced accommodation would require us to think differently about such things and innovate in ways that could benefit both genders just as external limitations such as load weight on aircraft has made us innovate regarding the size and mass of equipment.

I remember having this talk with a buddy of mine from 5th group SF who said that the innovations in lighter gear hasn't resulted in lighter pack weight. It just resulted in smaller teams carrying more of the gear. Instead of a 10 man team carrying 100 pound loads, you now have 5 man teams carrying 120 pound loads-- a development he says is typical for Pentagon problem solving.

Would actually having a lower limit for everyone make us think in ways that might benefit us?

Not sure who was looking at the newswire this morning. But the ban on women in combat has been lifted.

In a few years and exceptions to the new rule will be allowed. Which makes sense since women are held to a much lower physical standard, which in many roles creates a hazard. Realistically, women won't be (and shouldn't be) allowed into all positions until they have to meet the same standards as men.

Considering most of the men just getting into the armed forces cannot hack most of the physical standards, such that they are highly relaxed to cope with the over-weight/obese new recruits, not to mention criminal backgrounds and drug history, I think a healthy woman is a welcome sight.

Considering most of the men just getting into the armed forces cannot hack most of the physical standards, such that they are highly relaxed to cope with the over-weight/obese new recruits, not to mention criminal backgrounds and drug history, I think a healthy woman is a welcome sight.

I'm going to ask for a citation because I am unaware of the Marine Corps changing its PFT standards for men (I don't pay much attention to the other services though).

Paleocon wrote:

Would actually having a lower limit for everyone make us think in ways that might benefit us?

But we don't have a case of a lower limit for everyone, we have two different standards and frankly the female PFT standards are ridiculously easy.

Considering most of the men just getting into the armed forces cannot hack most of the physical standards, such that they are highly relaxed to cope with the over-weight/obese new recruits, not to mention criminal backgrounds and drug history, I think a healthy woman is a welcome sight.

I'm going to ask for a citation because I am unaware of the Marine Corps changing its PFT standards for men (I don't pay much attention to the other services though).

Paleocon wrote:

Would actually having a lower limit for everyone make us think in ways that might benefit us?

But we don't have a case of a lower limit for everyone, we have two different standards and frankly the female PFT standards are ridiculously easy.

I agree that the female PFT standards would be a joke for men who can pass the male PFT. I also think that the PF expectations for some combat roles are considerably higher than either (Ranger school, for instance). I imagine that they will continue to make PF requirements role specific.

This is their own standards. We have not even gotten into what standards relate to the business of being a soldier. But it is shocking that the Marines or Army would accept men that probably could not get hired at Wal-mart.

Actually LarryC changed my mind on this. I do still consider it hypocritical on the part of the church, but the defense makes sense; like when libertarians take advantage of things like public roads or other services; it's against their stated ideals, but that doesn't mean they have to forsake those services while they exist.

I would argue that in this case it does. This is a civil lawsuit. It doesn't have to go to trial. This is just two parties negotiating damages and fault. Using the courts to weasel out of a moral obligation (in the minds of the church) to a unborn person should strip away any ability for the church to claim a moral reason to avoid observing other laws of the land.

This case makes clear just how serious the church actually believes in protecting the sanctity of life, and makes obvious that their real intention is to just weasel out of following the PPACA.

"I suggest we imbibe copious amounts of alcohol and just wait for the inevitable blast wave." - Castiel

Part of the reason some of the physical expectations for combat ready troops are the way they are is because we have failed to think creatively regarding how we can make accommodations for women in combat while not reducing their combat effectiveness. A solid example of this is standard issue body armor. It is made to fit men and runs much longer in the torso than most women find comfortable. Especially when in a seated position, the armor tends to make lateral movement nearly impossible.

Some would argue that forced accommodation would require us to think differently about such things and innovate in ways that could benefit both genders just as external limitations such as load weight on aircraft has made us innovate regarding the size and mass of equipment.

snip...

Would actually having a lower limit for everyone make us think in ways that might benefit us?

Yes. Accommodating women in the workplace benefited both men and women, and created a more diverse and creative workforce.

"I suggest we imbibe copious amounts of alcohol and just wait for the inevitable blast wave." - Castiel